Reframing the International (original) (raw)
2014, ERIS – European Review of International Studies
The 'modern' world from the 17 th century to the 20 th was characterised by the consolidation of an 'inter-national' system, 1 structured around relations among sovereign nation-states. This system grew out of the post-medieval European states system and the spread of European (and later American and Asian) interstate relations, 18 th and 19 th century imperialism, and great Power (later super Power) conflict in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, culminating in the emergence of postcolonial 'new states' and developing countries in the middle of the 20 th century. This system was state-centric in two ways. On the one hand, the domestic politics of states focused increasingly on the centripetalisation 2 of political power within those states into what have been called 'arenas of collective action'; on the other hand, states increasingly interacted systemically with each other, making 'credible commitments' 3 in their roles as segmentally differentiated 'unit actors' 4-or, indeed, credibly breaking those commitments through interstate conflict and war, only to establish new structural forms in their wake. 5 These two dimensions have been seen as reinforcing each other in virtuous-or indeed vicious-circles until the late 20 th century. In this context, the international-or interstate-system has been seen as characterised by hierarchy-that is, which states are up and which are down-and by polarity-that is, how many states (and their alliance formations) 'counted' as structurally significant actors. States were constrained mainly to seek 'relative gains' vis-à-vis each other rather than to pursue 1 Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, Globalization in Question: The International Political Economy and the Possibilities of Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996). 2 I use the awkward term 'centripetalisation' rather than 'centralisation' in order to signal that this process does not necessarily involve a pyramidal hierarchisation of structures and institutions within states, but rather a potentially complex and endogenously differentiated system that is nevertheless dynamically unified around central principles and forms of institutionalisation and behaviour: see
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
The Journal of Conflict Studies, 1995
The international system is in a period of state expansion, or at least attempted expansion. More entities are trying to assert their independence now than at any time since the decolonization era of the 1950s and 1960s. In the process the state is being battered as both a concept and a legitimate reservoir of popular allegiance. The supposed benefits of national sovereignty are being challenged in a variety of ways throughout the world. States, in their traditional sense, are becoming both smaller and larger, and both less and more than was expected of them during the first half of the twentieth century. New organizations — regional associations both within and among traditional states, economic associations, social, ethnic and religious communities, affiliations based on interests or purpose rather than geographic propinquity — are all challenging the traditional role and sovereignty of the state in international politics. This article attempts to shed some light on what is happen...
States Have Navigated Opportunities, Limitations of Global Networks for Centuries
World Geography: Understanding a changing world, 2012
In this essay, I offer a qualified 'no' to the question of whether the power of nation-states is in decline due to globalization. My response is qualified because we are confronted here with two different questions, which require two different answers. The first question asks us to consider if global economic and social networks can undermine the power of nation-states in a general sense. To address this issue, I argue that such networks can and do impact the power of states, but that a critical look at the idea of power suggests a more complex story where the exercise of power by states often actually depends on far-reaching networks. The second question is one of novelty that asks us to evaluate what, if anything at all, may be new about the impact of global economic and social networks on the power of the nation-state. While there are some aspects of globalization that are new, I argue that states have always been confronted with limitations and opportunities due to the presence of economic networks and relationships that stretch across international boundaries. Ultimately, the original question suggests that we see the world in either/or terms of nation-states versus global networks. A more productive and historically defensible approach is to the power of nation-states as not something that is separate from or always limited by the presence of global economic and social networks, but rather as something that has been and continues to be partly created and enabled by such networks.
Nations and Nationalism, 2004
Globalisation has ambiguous effects on states. On the one hand, it favours national states since citizens' identification with their state provides for political and social stability. On the other hand, globalisation makes it difficult for states to be national because the scope of sovereign decision-making is reduced, and many citizens prioritise trans-national networks over national ones. Hence well-established national states, which are sufficiently resilient to maintain a national culture while also engaging with the wider world, enjoy a comparative advantage over such states who either fail to maintain national cohesion or seek to protect it by rejecting foreign influence. The present article revisits the most common typologies of nations and national states, and discusses how four main types of nations (ethnic, civic, plural and class) cope with globalisation. The article builds on the assumption that the 'foreign policy' field, notably the capacity of states to shape popular global policies, must be included in discussions of the future of the national state.
STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: STATE-BUILDING AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL SYSTEM, 2018
Conflicts are intrinsic to social systems and constitute an irreducible part of their development. This article analyzes the conflict between states and its effects on the evolutionary dynamics of the international political system. We discuss the ontology of each object of analysis and the causal mechanisms that connect their respective evolving trajectories. Then, the analytical model is evaluated regarding to the processes of formation of the Qin Empire in China and the construction of Nation-States in Europe. The working hypothesis is that the interactions among the strategies chosen by the agents to cope with the structural constrains and competition conditions they encounter cause changes in the international political systems, as well as on the actors themselves.
The Paradox of Globalization and State Fragmentation Since the Twentieth Century
This paper examines the process of globalization in relation to the Westphalia state system. The central focus of the paper is to investigate why nation-states are breaking up and ethnic nationalities are fighting for sovereignty and territorial authority in spite of all attempts to globalize the world and unify the international system. The paper most predominantly made use of secondary data and employed descriptive analysis. The findings reveal that globalization is not contributing to the withering away of nation-states and ethnic nationalities nor is it creating a new basis for their mutual co-existence in the framework of national (states) or regional communities. Thus, the paper concludes that it is not to be assumed that globalization will bring about the elimination of national or ethnic characteristics or cultures as they are persisting despite all universalization tendencies.
The impact of Globalization on State power has received much attention in social science literature. The effects of Globalization are steadily eroding away the Power of the State as a key actor in the International Arena. There have been substantial power shift in the International System from States actors to Non-State Actors since the birth of Globalization. The rise of Capitalism and autonomous function of International Markets, development of Innovative Technology and Improvement in Information Technology, erosion of national citizenship to Global Citizenship and the emergence and increasing importance of Non-State Actors have led to the changing nature of the international system The nature of the Global Village resulting from globalization requires states to change if they want to remain players in the international system. Thus, globalization required states to build its capacity to adapt and manage globalization in order to capitalize on opportunities and respond to the challenges.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.